Why does pluralism matter to epistemology?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/rfmc.v6i1.20237Keywords:
Pluralism. Robustness. Coherence. Cognitive values. Philosophical knowledge.Abstract
In this text a reflection about pluralism as a cognitive value, both in the domain of scientific knowledge and that of philosophical knowledge, is attempted. A few distinct forms of pluralism are presented at the outset that characterize various dimensions of scientific knowledge, with special attention being paid to pluralism of scientific themes, styles of thinking, theories, methodologies, and forms of rationality. Afterwards, the outline of an argument is presented with an aim at establishing the importance of pluralism as a value for scientific knowledge, insofar as pluralism would, within the scope of a coherentist view, increase the robustness of knowledge. Finally, the transposition of the argument is attempted towards the domain of philosophical knowledge, thus establishing pluralism as a value whose satisfaction would be desirable in philosophy as well. In order for this transposition to be possible, it is necessary to consider the problem of the distinction between science and philosophy taken as forms of knowledge, as well as the latter’s alleged lack of empirical character. Certain objections of a general nature to the view advanced here are taken into account, and it is maintained that a realization of pluralism to a high degree does not lead necessarily to either stagnation and conservatism or to the fragmentation of knowledge.
Downloads
References
ABRANTES, Paulo (2004). “Models and the dynamics of theories”. Philósophos, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 225-269, 2004.
ABRANTES, Paulo (2014). Método e ciência: Uma abordagem filosófica. Belo Horizonte: Fino Traço, 2014.
ABRANTES, Paulo (2016). Imagens de natureza, imagens de ciência. 2. ed. Revista e ampliada. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 2016.
BAILER-JONES, Daniela (1999). "Tracing the development of models in the philosophy of science". In: MAGNANI, L.; NERSESSIAN, N. J. & THAGARD, P. (eds). Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, pp. 23-40. New York: Kluwer / Plenum, 1999.
BALZER, W.; MOULINES, C. U. & SNEED, J. D. (2012). Una arquitectónica para la ciencia: El programa estructuralista. Trad. por P. Lorenzano. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes
BUENO, O. (2012). “Styles of reasoning: a pluralist view”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, v. 43, pp. 657-665, 2012.
BUENO, O. (2018). “Estilos de Raciocínio nas Ciências e nas Artes”. In: CHIBENI, S. et al (eds). Filosofia e Historia de la Ciencia en el Cono Sur ”“ Selección de trabajos del X Encuentro de la Asociación de Filosofía e Historia de la Ciencia del Cono Sur, pp. 33-45. Córdoba: AFHIC / Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 2018.
CROMBIE, A. C. (1994). Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts. 3v. London: Duckworth, 1994.
DAVIDSON, Donald (1975)[1984]. “Thought and talk”. In: DAVIDSON, D. Inquiries into truth and interpretation, pp. 155-170. 2a. ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1984.
DAVIDSON, Donald (2002). Ensaios sobre a verdade. Org. e trad. por P. Ghiraldelli Jr., Pedro F. Bendassoli e Waldomiro J. Silva Filho. São Paulo: Unimarco Editora, 2002.
FOLEY, Richard (1987). The Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, Massachusetts / London: Harvard University Press, 1987.
HACKING, I. (2009a). Ontologia histórica. Trad. por Leila Mendes. São Leopoldo, RS: Editora Unisinos, 2009.
HACKING, I. (2009b). Scientific Reason. Taiwan, National Taiwan University Press, 2009.
HOLTON, G. (1975). “On the role of themata in scientific thougth”. Nature, v. 188, pp. 328-334, 1975.
HOLTON, G. (1988). Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein. Rev. Edn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.
KIRKHAM, R. L. (2003). Teorias da verdade. Trad. por Alessandro Zir. São Leopoldo, RS: Editora Unisinos, 2003. (Publicado originalmente em 1992.)
KWA, C. (2011). Styles of knowing: a new history of science from ancient times to the present. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011.
LACEY, H. (2008). Valores e atividade científica 1. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica Scientiae Studia/Editora 34, 2008.
LACEY, H. (2010). Valores e atividade científica 2. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica Scientiae Studia/Editora 34, 2010.
LAUDAN, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis. Historical essays on scientific methodology. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981.
LAUDAN, Larry (1983). “The demise of the demarcation problem”. In: COHEN, R. S. & LAUDAN, L. (eds). Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, pp. 111-127. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983.
LAUDAN, Larry (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in the scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
LAUDAN, Larry (1989). “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Brit. J. Phil. Sci., v. 40, pp. 369-375, 1989. Reeditado em LAUDAN, L. Beyond Positivism and Relativism - Theory, Method and Evidence, Cap. 9. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.
LAUDAN, L. (2011). O progresso e seus problemas: rumo a uma teoria do crescimento científico. Tradução R. L. Ferreira. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2011. (Publicado originalmente em 1977.)
MOULINES, C. Ulises (2010). “The nature and structure of scientific theories”. Metatheoria, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 15-29, 2010.
MOULINES, C. Ulises (2011). “Cuatro tipos de desarrollo teórico en las ciencias empíricas. Metatheoria, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 11-27, 2011.
NEURAH, O. (1935)[2002]. “Pseudorracionalismo de la falsación”. Tradução e notas por A. Ibarra. Redes, v.10, n.19, pp.105-118, 2002.
NEURATH, O. (1937)[1983]. “Radical physicalism and the ‘real world”’. In: Cohen, R. S. & Neurath, M. (Ed.). Philosophical papers, 1913-1946. With a bibliography of Neurath in English, pp. 100-114. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
NICKLES, Thomas (1981). “What is a problem that we may solve it?” Synthese, v. 47, n. 1, pp. 85-118, 1981.
PORCHAT PEREIRA, O. (1975)[1994]. “A filosofia e a visão comum de mundo”. In: PORCHAT PEREIRA, O. Vida comum e ceticismo, pp. 46-95. 2. ed. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1994.
RESCHER, Nicholas (2001). Philosophical Reasoning - A Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing. Oxford / Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2001.
SHAPIN, Steven & SCHAFFER, Simon (2005). El Leviatán y la bomba de vacío: Hobbes, Boyle y la vida experimental. Trad. por Alfonso Buch. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 2005. (Publicado originalmente em 1985.)
SOLER, Léna; TRIZIO, Emiliano; NICKLES, Thomas & WIMSATT, William C. (eds) (2012). Characterizing the Robustness of Science ”“ After the Practice Turn in Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.
SOLER, Léna; ZWART, Sjoerd; LYNCH, Michael & ISRAEL-JOST, Vincent (eds) (2014). Science After the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York / London: Routledge, 2014.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
